What Type of Debater are You

What type of debater do you THINK you are?

When you're researching the topic, what kinds of articles are you looking for

Something dense, but links well to the topic

Something that argues the assumptions behind a topic

Something that talks about how to implement the resolution

Something confusing that can be used strategically

Lol you're not researching the topic

What is necessary in a framework?

A value and criterion

Just A standard or Role of the Ballot/Judge

A way to weigh different impacts

Anything is acceptable (ie. value, criterion, rotb, rotj, burden structures, etc)

Something impacting back to fairness or education

How do you feel about weighing?

It has to impact back to the weighing mechanism in the framing section

I prefer to preclude, but in a topical way

Weighing is the bomb.

I don't usually *need* to weigh

I prefer to preclude by impacting to external standards such as fairness or education

What are your thoughts on tricks?

You don't need them if you have a good framework

Don't like them. They distract from the discussion at hand

Don't like them. They get out of all the weighing you've previously done

They're pretty okay

They're the shiet

When should theory be used?

Strategically within the framework

It probably shouldn't be

When they do something weird/sketchy

When they trigger one of my imbedded arguments

All day erry day

What do you think about philosophy?

What do you think about solvency?

Unlock and Upgrade